Jonathan Riskind: Democrats might jilt Obama's agenda

Barack Obama will end up as one of the greatest presidents in American history or he won't even win a second term.

Barack Obama will end up as one of the greatest presidents in American history or he won't even win a second term.

And Obama seems more than comfortable with that idea, which perhaps is what most of all puts him at odds with members of Congress, especially fellow Democrats.

Obama is attempting to deliver what he promised during his campaign: increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans, health care for those now without coverage, reduced dependence on coal and foreign oil, education reform and increased federal dollars for student loans and grants.

Obama is willing to listen to and court Republicans but then, for all his talk of bipartisanship, he shoves his agenda down their throats. As long as Democrats and two or three moderate Republicans in the Senate go along, it's going to be Obama's way or the highway.

But here's the rub: Democrats pose the biggest threat to Obama's agenda.

Obama adviser David Axelrod has said, "We're not in a position to think incrementally."

But that's about the only way many members of Congress think. They dither and debate, yet how often do they really accomplish anything significant or truly historic?

Well, Obama is shooting for historic, and the $3.6 trillion budget blueprint he revealed last week would be real change. That's not saying it's guaranteed to work; Obama is more than willing to give Republicans the chance to say, "We told you so" in 2012.

But Democrats might be too afraid of what the voters might say in 2010. Long-term thinking is not a strong suit in Congress; self-preservation is.

Take Obama's plan to help pay for his domestic agenda by raising $646 billion from utilities and other companies that emit greenhouse gases above specified limits, by requiring them to buy pollution credits. The approach is endorsed by many environmentalists as the best way to start addressing climate change and force a move toward alternative-energy sources.

But it's an approach that is going to take some short-term sacrifice on the part of consumers, especially in Ohio and other states heavily reliant on coal-fired power plants. And it's going to test the resolve of lawmakers including Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. He has made investing in green energy a primary issue, saying that alternative energy is Ohio's economic future.

But he is leery of Obama's cap-and-trade plan, saying last week, "I will not be supportive of that part of the budget" because Ohio businesses, particularly manufacturers, shouldn't "bear that heavy of the brunt of this burden of moving toward a balanced budget. There are better ways to do it. Cap and trade without some help for manufacturing is really a problem for Ohio."

Brown's job is to try to negotiate the best deal for the state on such issues, and perhaps Ohio and other states in similar straits will need help in dealing with a cap-and-trade system.

But it's a fine line between negotiation and obstruction.

Polls show Obama has the backing of a clear majority of Americans. Congressional Democrats? Not so much. Congressional Republicans? Even less.

A global economic crisis of historic proportions -- oh yes, lots of foreign-policy problems, too -- gives Obama the chance to cash in those popularity chips in a gamble to become the next Franklin D. Roosevelt.

So Democrats are faced with a choice: act incrementally and hope the economy staggers back, at least in the short-run, to a condition that lets them hold onto power in 2010, or go all in with Obama and either ride to historic achievement and majorities for at least a generation or be ridden out of the majority by 2012.